The U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, describes the National Register of Historic Places as “the official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. National Register properties have significance to the prehistory or history of their community, State, or the Nation (NPS 1990, revised 1997). Continue reading
Category: Environmental Review (Page 12 of 12)
Last month we discussed Section 106 consultation and how the outcome of the process is not predetermined but rather a result of the interaction among the participants, with the Federal agency making the final decision about how a project will proceed. Agencies in coordination with consulting parties are required to consider project design options that avoid or minimize effects to historic properties. However, it is not always possible to meet the needs of the project and simultaneously preserve a historic property. Continue reading
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 recognizes that historic preservation is a public interest. Under Section 106 of the NHPA, Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their projects on historic properties in consultation with historic preservation stakeholders. There is a general lack of understanding related to the consultation process, and how it is carried out varies widely by Federal agency and by project. This blog hopes to provide answers to more common questions about consultation and references for additional information.
The crisis in transportation funding in Pennsylvania has had some consequences for the management of heritage resources. Since the Federal Highway Administration and PennDOT are legally required to consider the effects transportation projects have on archaeological sites and historic structures and districts, the historically low levels of funding have made that mandate more difficult. The crisis has also limited the opportunities young archaeologists and historians have to gain practical experience in their profession, and to advance their careers as the numbers and size of transportation projects shrink. In 2010, archaeologists at PennDOT and at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) launched a new program intended to help address both problems. Continue reading
We archaeological reviewers here at the PA SHPO have many jobs other than just reviewing Section 106 and State History Code submissions. Among our ‘other duties as assigned’, we are also responsible for helping the GIS Section ensure that the information from archaeological reports gets into the CRGIS (Cultural Resources Geographic Information System) for use by consultants, planners, and the public. Making sure all the data we receive at our office is curated correctly and that it is available online is a big job – one that you, as report writers and submitters, can help us do more efficiently. Continue reading
In the past five years since Marcellus shale drilling has started, the pace of archaeological survey in the northern tier and the western counties has increased sharply. Continue reading
Almost every archaeologist I know has heard this question from somebody from the general public: “How do you know where to dig?” Although it used to give me a facial tic after hearing it over and over, it’s actually not a bad question.
New Year, New Approach to Environmental Review
As we ring in a new year, the PA Historic Preservation Office (PA HPO) is also fine tuning a new approach to the review of state and federal projects that have the potential to affect historic structures. The review process, mandated by federal law (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended) and state law (the PA History Code), is a core responsibility of all state historic preservation offices. Here in Pennsylvania we have made some changes in order to expedite and streamline our review process. Continue reading
Follow Us
Recent Comments